Complaints of Judicial Misconduct: Coverup, Damage Control, and Containment

On November 1, 2018 I filed four complaints of Judicial Misconduct. Such complaints are required to be filed with the Circuit Executive of the various federal courts; depending on where one lives. For me it was the sixth circuit located in Cincinnati, Ohio. In other words, these appeals courts are asked to investigate themselves. Because there was very clearly no willingness to address these complaints I published them in my book: ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE, TITLE THEFT, and its CHAIN OF CORRUPTION; chapters six thru nine. This book can be found on my Amazon Author Page. https://www.amazon.com/Alexandra-Clair/e/B008PY1XIQ%3Fref=dbs_a_mng_

It took twenty nine months before I got back any kind of response. The pathetic stab at coverup came in the form of minimalist and wholly inaccurate two pages each for a total of four pages. Determining that despite objective evidence no investigation into slander of the claims at the Screening for Merit precursor to due process was needed. Think this can’t happen? I direct you to: INJUSTICE ON APPEAL by, retired law school professors Richman and Reynolds: https://www.amazon.com/William-M-Richman/e/B00BJ8E4HM?ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_2&qid=1622990992&sr=8-2

I then had 42-days to ask yet again… and again… and again… for an investigation fated to be predictably shut down under the label “frivolous;” speaking to the insider echo chamber to say that Screening for Merit will be preserved no matter the level of abuse. My responses (objections) arrived at the Circuit Executive on Tuesday, June 1, 2021. Past behavior being the best predictor of future behavior I am publishing these objections (responses) to the Circuit Executive decision not to investigate. Begging for referral of an investigation to the sixth circuit Judicial Council. Are they even capable of objectivity? We can only hope. Courts – government bureaucrats incapable of self-examination, refusing to admit wrongs in order to restore justice are a danger to every American; to our very republic.

Alan Dershowitz said: “Judges are the weakest link in our system of justice and they are also the most protected.” Insider secrecy has protected government corruption for far too long. This first response to the decision not to investigate is directed to Marc Theriault at the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals / Circuit Executive. As requested it is written in “letter form.” I’ve omitted the headings. Keep in mind that it has now been Thirty One Months – Nov. 3, 2018 thru June 6, 2021 that the first complaints have sat gathering dust with no commitment to anything, but interminable delay as a strategy… to say that WE THE PEOPLE do not matter.

May 27, 2021

RE: Misconduct Petition

To Whom It May Concern:

I hereby petition the Circuit Executive for review of their decision not to refer for investigation, to the Judicial Council, complaint numbers: 06-18-901 03/104.  Doing so in their role of, administration of the judicial policy and discipline process.” As is my right under the First Amendment where repeated violations: abridging the freedom of speech and right to petition the government for redress of grievances has been fatally and repeatedly suppressed.    

It is unclear in the correspondence which number, 03 or 04, pertains to which judge? Though submitted separately and containing substantially different, though coordinated allegations dismissal is lumped together in the minimalist and inaccurate Memorandum and Order of 04/23/2021.

I believe that: 18 U.S. Code § 3771 Crime Victims’ Rights (7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay; applies here.  I am convinced that I am alive today only because it is believed that the fix is in and this Civil RICO Case will never see the light of a courtroom.  In my book I describe the untimely death of two persons.  There has most recently been a third.  Alexandra Clair (Clair) is a crime victim.  Not only was my home stolen, but when it was understood that she was investigating title theft schemes operating within both a local and national footprint she was threatened.

“Free from unreasonable delay.”  Serving the agenda that this Civil RICO Case die on the vine of inaction there has been a delay of two years-five-months between four complaints of judicial misconduct mailed to the Circuit Executive on Thursday, 11/01/2018.  Received as documented by US Postal Receipt on Saturday, 11/03/3018.  Present for processing on Monday, 11/05/2018.  A response finally came in the form of two unsigned Memorandum Orders dated 04/23/2021. Post marked as mailed from Cincinnati, Ohio on 04/27/2021.  Not received to my post office box until nine days later; limiting time to respond, i.e., pursuant to Rule 18, “have a right to file a petition for review and doing so within 42 day of the date of the Chief Judge’s Order.”  In the huge imbalance of power, faced with such stagnation it is perhaps expected that indigent litigants will “get the message” and simply give up.  I began fighting for right of access to due process in April 2016. I am now fighting for access to due process and recognition that my, Civil RICO case was subjected to institutionalized bias and coverup of corruption  

Two unequal and separate processes functioned as barriers to due process: 1. Screening for Merit.  2. Assignment of Appeals to the control of employees, career bureaucrats.  As evidenced by interminable delay and what I have been put through, both are shown to be so degraded as to have worked a manifest injustice with, if not addressed and rectified, ongoing threat to the public welfare.   

Under 28 U.S. Code § 352 the acting chief judge has elected to conduct a minimalist “limited inquiry” that in effect is no inquiry at all.  Selective review of the record and arbitrary application of the rules qualifies as injustice.  I have elected to address the conduct of the Magistrate Judge and her superior Judge Lipman each separately.  Doing so within this same letter, in “letter form” as instructed under 18(b) of Article VI. REVIEW BY JUDICIAL COUNCIL 18 Petition for Review of the Chief-Judge Disposition Under Rule 11(c),(d), or (e).  

MAGISTRATE JUDGE DIANE K. VESCOVO

28 U.S. Code § 1915(e)(2) rule applies only to “In Forma Pauperis” suits.  Screening as the precursor to due process immediately connotates to that screening exercise a thicket of presumptions including that being poor and lacking legal representation equates to a case not deserving of due process.  Due Process is denied if a litigant is denied a meaningful opportunity to be heard in a court of law; “granted at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Access to Due Process was obliterated within the already biased, Screening for Merit culture of functioning first and foremost as a gatekeeper.  Slander and manipulation of the claims had the effect of denying right to present evidence to a jury unfiltered by the Magistrate Judge slander of the claims.

Rights DENIED this Civil RICO Case at the screening juncture included: Right to a liberal construction of the Civil RICO Case.  Right to a neutral decision-maker.  Right to have the factual allegations believed. No opportunity to object seated in that none of the objection filings have been addressed.  Writing, proclaiming, asserting under cover of judicial authority that one has done something so as to appear in compliance with rules and procedures is not the same as actually doing so. 

Failure of the Circuit Executive – Memorandum and Orders do not address slander of the claims at the district court.  They avoid responsibility to do so under the stop gap of, frivolous and doing so as a means to suppress objective evidence.  This is a misuse of power and a form of corruption.  Because Screening for Merit is not Due process, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), all factual allegations of the plaintiff are to be believed and the claims must not be dismissed unless it appears that the plaintive can prove no set of facts pursuant to his or her allegations which would entitle the plaintiff to relief.[1]  At the district court the Factual Allegations were not believed. They were altered, misquoted, and by selected omission derailed so as to mirror the fraud defense before Defendants ever need show up in court to defend their actions. As a fundamental tenant of the fairness standard, “belief” equates to an honest and factual rendering of the Compliant.  By no examination of the record can it be concluded that this standard was preserved.      

28 U.S. Code § 352 (1) “whether appropriate corrective action has already been taken,” and therefore there is no need for a “a formal investigation” does not apply in that corrective action has NOT been taken.  Screening for Merit as a tool to obstruct due process is the significant stake issue of every objection filed at the district court. Moving forward from the district court to appeal at the sixth circuit speech was again quashed.  Not a single one of the fourteen appeal questions have ever been addressed by any Order or Mandate issued from the sixth circuit. As to how this happened there are direct correlations and coordinated conduct stemming forward from the district court to the sixth circuit; achieving the same goals.  That this Civil RICO Case never achieve due process and that on appeal the district court will be shielded from multiple violations of the screening requirements going so far as to blatantly and repeatedly slander the RICO Claims and which still stand to overcome speech and corrupt the district court record.  

The Memorandum and Order reads: The first consists of allegations that the subject magistrate judge made factual and legal errors that led to the dismissal of the complainant’s civil action and that the subject district judge allowed this to happen.  The second part of this statement regarding the conduct of district court judge Sheryl Lipman is addressed further down. The first part is addressed here. 

I plead for referral of the facts as a matter of record under 28 U.S. Code § 352 Review of the Complaint by the chief judge.  (d) Referral of Petition for Review to panels of the Judicial Council.  Ignoring the overwhelming pattern of slander is an exercise in tyranny.  Multiple examples have been provided proving that Magistrate Judge Vescovo slandered the claims. Examples are provided per the Amended Assignment of Errors; 05/02/2017 [37].  Some of which were first objected to in: Objection to the Report and Recommendations 08/02/2016 [14].  The Complaint of Judicial Misconduct cites these errors going back and forth between Vescovo-examples where misrepresentations and slander exist juxtaposed with what was actually written as a matter of record by the litigant.  Who, let’s be real, is not yet even a plaintiff since nowhere in the screening picture is there a trial judge or jury.

Refusal to conduct an investigation is to say that there are no circumstances by which recusal is warranted at the Screening for Merit juncture.  

I realize that the role of the Circuit Executive is not to rule.  But because they have refused to look at objective evidence that Judge Vescovo slandered the claims. Because past conduct is a predictor of future conduct, I cite in the formal record of this “letter form” four examples already in your possession, but treated under the label “frivolous” as though they do not exist. 

EXAMPLES / Every one of which works to suppress speech while elevating the fraud defense. 

  1. Judge Vescovo writes: “On March 23, 2012 Clair received notice that an eviction had been ordered.”  No “notice” was provided to Ms. Clair on March 23, 2012.  What was provided was a forged Fayette County judges order of eviction.  There was no foreclosure.  There is no proof of service of any kind in the county records.  Contradiction of the claims serve the defense while suppressing speech.   
  2. Judge Vescovo wrote in her motion for dismissal: “It appears that the fraud alleged by Ms. Clair relates to BANA’s refusal to approve Ms. Clair for HAMP…”  Judge Vescovo suppresses a core tenant of the RICO claims in this wholly inaccurate reconfiguration of the record, i.e., slander.  She contradicts the claim that BANA had no authority to proffer a HAMP application process since, stemming forward from the HUD Fraud perpetrated in 2009, BANA was no longer the servicer, the note holder, or the note owner of record.  Thus, the Hamp Fraud Scheme.  I actually wrote: “Ms. Clair is not naming Bank of America, their Servicers and Investors or any defendant named in this Civil RICO Private Right of Action for failure to modify her loan under the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP).”         
  3. Described page 29 of the Amended Assignment of Errors. Judge Vescovo wrote: It appears that Clair’s lawsuit filed in state case was also a Civil RICO Case. She then props up this lie (page 37 – point 26 from the Amended Assignment of Errors); Judge Vescovo writes:  Clair’s instant RICO Claims may also be barred under the doctrine of res judicata.  Clair states in the complaint that she initiated a civil RICO lawsuit against BANA in Chancery Court of Fayette County, TN.   This is an outright LIE.  If this is acceptable conduct for a Magistrate Judge every indigent, and, or, pro se litigant coming before this district court are in serious trouble.  The case filed by Webb Brewer was not a Civil RICO Case.  In fact, this case never moved beyond filing.  Clair fired him for lying about what had and had not been accomplished in June of 2014.    
  4. Amended Report and Recommendations for Sua Sponte Dismissal, the Magistrate Judge wrote: On December 21, 2011, Stancil transferred his interest in the property to Clair via a quitclaim deed in compliance with their divorce agreement.  Clair actually wrote: Brett Stancil quit claimed the Subject Property to Ms. Clair 12/21/2010 in compliance with their divorce agreement; divorce final March 2, 2011. Forward dating the year by one year and entering that wrong date into the court record contradicts the time line having enormous benefit for the financial industry defendants.     

The Magistrate Judge inserted the fraud narrative into the record. She smothered the claims each time she writes her interpretation of the foreclosure lie into the district court record. There was no foreclosure.  Each time she proposed that Clair applied for a short sale when in fact the short sale was one of five known flips of the property title, laundering the chain of title while skimming equity and thus Bank Fraud.  Each time, in contradiction of the RICO claims, she proposes that a valid HAMP application process took place deflecting from and contradicting claims pertaining to the HAMP Fraud Scheme.  Having the exhibits, the Magistrate Judge contrived to distance the hijacking of a HUD program as a pattern of theft-practice where by, premised on a fraud narrative homes were pooled into HUD programs, and then purchased out of those programs at a vastly reduced price and thus, having control of the digital property title, able to drive those mortgages, including the subject home, into default. I had a right to present these claims to a jury as supported by hard tangible proof.   Magistrate Judge Vescovo built a case for the defense upon assumption that no one would bother to read the series of objection filings.  This informs the degree to which indigent persons are held in such low regard.

The Amended Assignment of Errors was filed with the district court during that period that the appeal was sent back to the district court for ruling on outstanding appealable issues.

The Amended Assignment of Errors was filed into the district court docket on 05/02/2017 [37] district court Case No.: 16-2263.  An Assignment of Errors was first filed with the sixth circuit on 12/08/2016, [6] first sixth circuit Case No.: 16-6672. Speaking to pattern this filing was severed from the Pro Se Appellant’s Brief which was filed under second Case No.:17-5618 in a violation of Procedural Due Process and via the instrumentality of a forged filing that upon belief, originated at the district court.   Clair added to and amended the Assignment of Errors first filed with the sixth circuit.  She then filed it with the district court on 05/02/2017 in support of yet another, Motion for Recusal [36] and Motion to Reverse Judgement [38]. Never addressed. 

The circuit executive follows the same course of cover-up and concealment.  One does not need to address evidence one does not read and thus succeeds in suppressing.   In failing to address the Amended Assignment of Errors and actual content from the Complaints of Judicial Misconduct, “Misconduct” being the salient word, the wholly inadequate charade of review avoids any obligation to address the Magistrate Judge’s slander of the claims and failure to apply screening requirements. The Circuit Executive, by design, is limiting their exposure to the truth.  This serves the agenda to deny the Complaints of Judicial Misconduct a full and comprehensive review and investigation.      

Repetition of the defendant’s fraud narrative bleeds into every order written by Judge Vescovo.  There has been no impartial review of the court’s own records.  And additionally, that objection filings on facts and objective evidence have never been addressed. An important question totally ignored as the white elephant sitting in any room where these words may be read is this.  Does the right to be heard followed by the right to object operate in practice at the Screening for Merit juncture?  Are the screening requirements, among them that all the claims are to be accepted as true, hold in reality and practice?  Slander of the claims is a denial of speech. Codified as record it produces documents fraud.  Screening for Merit used as a tool to deny speech is a separate and unequal application of the law and thus a civil rights violation.  Indigent litigants are a minority class.  Only indigent appeals are submitted to Screening for Merit as the precursor to due process.  Systemic (institutional bias) seated in the gatekeeper role of this circuit executive has served the outcome, that the sacred cow of Screening for Merit is above criticism.  This presents a danger to the public welfare while sending the message that courts do not exist for the people.   

Enter: all the claims are frivolous; 28 U.S. Code 352 (b)(A)(iii).  “frivolous, lacking sufficient evidence (B) lack any factual foundation or are conclusively refuted by objective evidence…

Slandered claims to the degree proffered by Magistrate Judge Vescovo make a mockery of any pretense that the magistrate judge functioned as an impartial and objective arbiter.  “The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution has been construed to guarantee litigants right to a ‘neutral and detached,’ or impartial judge.” Ward v. Village of Monroville; 409 U.S. 57 (1972).  Unless the Circuit Execute wants to claim that Screening for Merit is a separate and unequal process not subject to constitutional rights and the rule of law, which by passive refusal to examine the record, by fiat is exactly what they are claiming.    

 The Memorandum and Order cherry picked, minimized and trivialized the one example cited by the Chief Judge to say that there were no conflicts of interest.  Appearance of Conflicts of Interest and bias is evidenced by:

  1. Commercial Appeal Article of 4/4/2015 by, Daniel Connolly.  Federal Court in Memphis takes steps to speed up pro se’cases.” A copy of this article was one of sixteen attachments in support of the complaint filed against Magistrate Judge Vescovo. Perhaps it is the case that two years and five months later the circuit executive no longer has copies of these attachments each bearing a numbered exhibit sticker.  According to this article the Magistrate Judge assignment is to dispense with pro se cases that clog the federal court system.  To thus improve the district court statistics, ranked 90th out of 94 districts nationwide at the time the article was written. The article conveys that poor people who cannot attract legal representation equates to a weak case with almost no chance of being won.  Double speak to readers of this Commercial Appeal Article to say “don’t bother.”  Two examples are cited in the article and by intrusion of misplaced shame seek to elicit shame by association as a stop-gap.   One example is a mentally ill person described in a manner devoid of compassion.  The second is a prisoner.  His win is called “modest” and “astounding.”  His win is disparaged as a near anomaly, almost not worth the effort when in fact shaving time off this prisoner sentence must have almost felt like a miracle to this man.  The shamefully transparent article planted in the public domain is directed to potential, already disadvantaged possible future litigants of Western Tennessee.  To say that because poverty is so great there are more of us than in other locations.  The article places stats above justice while at the same time inviting commiseration of the Magistrate Judge’s back log of work in having to deal with pro se litigants, i.e., colored as a “less than” sub group of the American population. Intimation: a waste of the courts’ valuable resources.  The article was removed from archive access after I sent it with a letter to the pre-Barr justice department. This article demonstrates an appalling lack of self-checking awareness spilling over to reflect badly on all federal district courts.  It proffers under one umbrella of thought that everyone who reads this article will agree that pro se cases are not deserving of equal treatment under the law.  The article focuses on Judge Vesvoco’s new role.  It conveys bias seated in contempt for pro se litigants. The Civil RICO case I filed a year later on 04/20/2016 would have impacted the district court budget as well as the statistical gains already made.  The phrase “speed up pro se cases” is code for dispensing quickly with indigent appeals at the Screening for Merit precursor to due process.      
  2. Judge Vescovo labeled the actions of three Memphis attorney defendants “law firms” “minimal.”  In doing so she was not screening the case, but driving conclusions toward the defense side.  Exceeding the screening requirements, she wrote into her dismissal: “it appears that the minimal allegations in her complaint that three law firms represented Clair at various points in her state court proceeding…”  This wholly untrue and fictious statement provides cover to the collaboration of three attorneys to catch and kill this Civil RICO Case. This charge would have come before a trial judge and jury had this Civil RICO Case ever been accorded the light of a court room. The statement maligns Clair to convey that she is someone who cannot get along with any attorney.  The chosen words evoke a picture of Clair running through three different law firms in one court proceeding.  In fact, as already stated there were not “three law firms,” but one attorney that represented Clair in the state case filing. The Vescovo word-pictures are replete with misstatements of facts that suppress and trivialize the RICO Claims.  That contradict the factual allegations.  That play to insider, institutionalized bias to which indigent appellants must overcome as an established and added hurdle.  
  3. These maneuvers are possible only because the Magistrate Judge operates under the assumption that confirmation bias to shield judges above the Constitutional right to be heard is so great that no one will bother to read what the pro se litigant actually wrote.
  4. Per the machinations described in point 2 (above) Magistrate Judge Vescovo has quashed: Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure (Exhibit No.: 77) which sits among the exhibits she complained had not been filed. These exhibits were filed into the docket.  Screening did not require exhibits.  The question hangs as to why the Magistrate Judge needed them?  Did she share information with the financial industry cohort either directly or indirectly?  Another attachment utterly and completely ignored was No.: 19, article in which Judge Vescovo’s husband, Mike McLaren is quoted as saying, “We talk about the law a lot. She tells me about some of her cases and I tell her about mine.”  Did selected exhibits that should have had no place at the screening juncture inform risk areas to the defense side, driving construction of answers that overwhelming favor the defense (slandering the claims) before the defense ever needs show up in court?           
  5. Appearance of Conflict.  The Memorandum and Order states dishonestly that, “there are two main components of this judicial conduct complaint.”  Screening for Merit abuses are not addressed.  Slander of the claims are not addressed.  Appearance of there being conflicts of interest with the financial industry-Defendants is addressed.   Doing so in a manner that trivializes and selectively cheery picks the one part that can be easily white washed while omitting other parts.  Never been heard, thus I repeat. Defendants represent an income stream to law firms at which Vescovo-McLaren family members are employed. Even if Clair had not sent attachments this is a matter of record easily accessed via: www.pacer.gov. Clients include: Bank of America and by extension, RECONTrust Company.  Core Logic Services and by extension the Equator computer platform used as a communication tool to assign theft perfecting tasks amongst the perpetrator nexus keeping the chain of theft on track.  Also, the secret MERS Interim lender and proof of bank fraud coming from the MERS record. Thus, MERSCorp Holding, Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registration System.  Bank of New York Mellon and JP Morgan Chase Bank.  Pretium Partners, LLC and Pretium Mortgage Acquisition Trust, are clients of Baker Donelson; (Nicholas Vescovo). Pattern examples blocked from presentation to a jury expose the national scope of operations, i.e., thirty-two stolen property titles pooled into mortgage-backed securities, flowing into managed funds handled by Pretium Partners, LLC and linked to the perpetrator nexus and subject attorneys.  Attorney’s benefiting from two or more of these client relationships, connected by blood or marriage to Judge Vescovo, include her son, Nicholas Vescovo (Baker Donelson).  Stepson, Michael C. McLaren (Butler Snow.)  Nephew Brian Shelton (Bradley, Arant, Boult, Commings, LLP) and husband Mike McLaren.  The circuit executive has called these connections frivolous. Deflecting responsibility: Any challenge to the merits of a judge’s rulings is outside the scope of judicial-misconduct Proceedings. 

“To extent that it is based on these allegations, the complaint is subject to dismissal as frivolous under Rule 11(c)(1)(C) and (D).”  The Circuit Executive appears to be holding the line, deflecting from the trailing ramifications of where slander of the claims and the district court conduct eventually led. The claims were slandered.  Screening for Merit was used as a means to obstruct due process.  Screening was NOT by any measure a fair process but an abuse of power and an exercise in tyranny.  Stop with the coverup.  You know full well and have not forgotten that your first allegiance is to the Constitution of the United States of America, your oath of office, and the people of this nation.  Do your job.  Refer for Investigation. The Magistrate Judge could have voluntarily recused herself without ever stating the reason, as is the right of any judge to do so.  Her choice, despite multiple objection filings, was to hold onto control of screening, writing the same lies into future Orders.  Judge Lipman did not require recusal despite objective evidence that the RICO Claims were slandered.   

The Supreme Court held that because there was an objective appearance of bias, due process required recusal (Caperton) and that the guarantee of fair procedures is a right (Matthews 424 U.S. at 332; (explaining that due process prevents government from freely depriving individuals of liberty or property).   “Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires a judge to recuse himself not only when actual bias has been demonstrated or when the judge has an economic interest in the outcome of the case, but when “extreme facts” create a “probability of bias.” 

DISTRICT COURT JUDGE SHERYL LIPMAN

I hereby petition the Judicial Council for review of their decision not to investigate Judicial Complaints filed and assigned complaint numbers: 06-18-901 03/04 on 12/06/2018.  I do so as my right under the First Amendment where repeated violations: abridging the freedom of speech and right to petition the government for redress of grievances has occurred.

I beg that the Circuit Executive refer Complaint(s) of Judicial Misconduct to the Judicial Council and then hopefully to the Judicial Conference of the United States.  I understand that the judicial council of the circuit has no power to change a decision; “only a court can do so.”  This has no bearing on the requirement that the Circuit Executive determine if, as alleged in the complaint of Judicial Misconduct, Judge Lipman did engage in conduct “prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts.” 28 U.S. Code § 351 Complaints; judge defined (a) Filing of Complaint by any person. I qualify as any person though I and my claims of judicial misconduct are marginalized and ignored to the extent that I might as well be invisible. 

Without looking at the evidence the Memorandum and Order states that the complaints are frivolous.  To thus, communicate that the “allegations in the complaint lack any factual foundation or are conclusively refuted by objective evidence;” 28 U.S. Code 352 (b)(B).  Dismissal at the Screening for Merit precursor to due process is only appropriate for a claim based on an indisputable “meritless legal theory.” I am not an attorney.  I cannot write as an attorney would.  That said I had done extensive research.  I understood precisely how the chain of theft functioned in my case and in others, put forth in three pattern example groupings that along with other evidence, I’ve been unjustly denied the right to be present before a jury.  Judge Vescovo improperly complained that I had not filed exhibits.  She had those exhibits. Once filed that bell cannot be un-rung. The manner in which, the claims were slandered informs that she used those exhibits to frame conclusions for dismissal leaning toward the defense side. 

One sided scrutiny of the record serves to shield from criticism the sacred cow of screening which functions primarily in the gate keeper role to limit cases.  Misconduct is the salient word.  There is a duty and a responsibility to determine if judicial misconduct took place. Stop with the cover-up.    

The Memorandum and Order reads: Finally, the complaint alleges that the subject district judge failed to exercise appropriate oversight.  This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U. S C. § 351(c).  As already stated, there is no “undersigned” since the Memorandum and Order is not signed.  The Memorandum and Order addresses none of the issues of misconduct raised in the Complaint of Judicial Misconduct filed against Judge Lipman. The smokescreen story that trails forward to the sixth circuit as an intrusive, deflective, phony and fictious appeal question and equally deflects accountability away from slander of the claims and forgery of a filing at the district court is the first or second amended complaint. It is a clever trick of lawyers to direct attention away from what reflects most damningly on the misconduct of their clients.  The Circuit Executive has no client.  Their duty is to the integrity of the judiciary and to the public welfare. Quashing slander and forgery the Memorandum and Order raises the smokescreen amended complaints: Meanwhile the complainant filed an amended complaint… dismissed the amended complaint, struck the second amended complaint… Please, please, please address slander and forgery. 

 The responsibility to assign Clair a fair judge, and then a fair and impartial Magistrate Judge assigned to screen the Civil RICO Case was the job of the district court. The neutrality requirement resides: “in a Constitutional order grounded in the rule of law…” Clair’s right to a fair arbiter who is: “unclouded by personal bias or conflicts of interest” Judicial Disqualification: An Analysis of Federal Law; 2010; was not preserved.   Right to, and access to, an unbiased judge did not rest with the Pro Se Litigant, upon recognizing that her claims were slandered to research and learning the extent of the Magistrate Judge’s conflicts of interest.

Judge Lipman had irrefutable evidence before her that the claims were slandered stemming forward from Objection to the Report and Recommendations 08/02/2016 [14]; extending thru Motion for Recusal/Conflicts of Interest 05/02/2017 [36]; and augmented by: Amended Assignment of Errors 05/02/2017 [37].  Clair is still writing to a brick wall proven in that the Memorandum and Order adopts the strategy of the district court.  They fail to address slander of the claims, forgery, and unequal application of screening procedures. The Memorandum and Order is written to the insider echo chamber to say, “job done, troublesome indigent applicant handled.”  Just because the Memorandum and Order will not write the words slander and forgery does not mean they did not occur.  For continuing to object via the only means one has at the Screening for Merit juncture Clair has been painted as troublesome and harassing.  This panders to the bias that already paints indigent persons as a “less than” class, wasting the court’s time; called in one federal publication, “a headache.”      

Judge Lipman exercised no checking control over the conduct of the Magistrate Judge.  Judge Lipman failed to enforce procedural protections at the screening juncture.  “…it is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the Citizen and against any stealth encroachment therein” (Bryers v. United States 273 US R 28 (1927)As a limitation upon abuse and over-reach of government, under both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments the district court was required to preserve procedural due process “which requires the government to follow certain procedures before it deprives a person of life, liberty, or property.” 

  1. Judge Lipman did not enforce screening procedures.
  2. She did not require the Magistrate Judge to voluntarily recuse herself from having any further power over the screening outcomes and doing so as of: Objection to the Report and Recommendations [14] 08/02/2016.   
  3. She did not require the Magistrate Judge to address and correct Slander of the Claims. 
  4. Her passivity, taking the form of tacit approval, played a crucial role in perfecting the goals of the RICO Criminal Enterprise; illegal seizure of private property operating within both a local and national footprint absent due process. 
  5. Slander of the claims and rewriting content running unchecked had the effect of producing instrumentality in the form of Judicial Orders.  These orders repeatedly suppressed speech of the indigent litigant making use of the axiom: if one repeats a lie often enough, it will be believed. Judge Lipman, upon reading the series of Objection filings made no effort to curtail the conduct of her Junior. Lies and slander overcame facts never to inform other victims, never to inform those federal agencies also defrauded including HUD, Treasury, and the IRS; nor any federal investigators screening Civil RICO Cases.

Upon failure to screen for merit, Constitutional Rights and procedural protections denied this Civil RICO Case were:  

  1. Right to be heard. 
  2. Right to object. 
  3. Right to have the factual allegations believed.  
  4. Right, to a liberal construction of the case. 
  5. Right, to a factual rendering of the claims. 
  6. Right, to a fair arbiter. 

Judge Lipman rubber stamped every decision.  Insulated by the huge disparity of power and position she signed and adopted every dismissal, ignoring: The Supreme Court held that because there was an objective appearance of bias, due process required recusal (Caperton) and that the guarantee of fair procedures is a right (Matthews 424 U.S. at 332; (explaining that due process prevents government from freely depriving individuals of liberty or property).

Judge Lipman did not protect the free speech right of the objections to be addressed. …objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of the court.  A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations as provided by rules of the court…   And… to which objection is made; 28 U.S. Code 636 § (b)(1)(C). 

Failure to protect constitutional rights within the framework of fair screening procedures made a mockery of: All factual allegations of the plaintiff are to be believed and the claims must not be dismissed unless it appears that the plaintive can prove no set of facts pursuant to his or her allegations which would entitle the plaintiff to relief.  Clair wrote that she requested a jury trial.  Sealing coverup in the huge imbalance of power there is not only no right to appear, but there is no stenographic transcript of any discussion at which conclusions were arrived at and in this case, informed by 144-exhibits.  Upon filing these exhibits in response to Judge Vescovo’s complaint that they had not been filed, the clerk should have informed Clair that they were not required until the case was docketed for trial. 

Judge Lipman used her authority to perfect that the slandered record would stand.  Rule 38. Right to a Jury Trial; (a) Right preserved: The right of trial by jury as declared by the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution – or as provided by a federal statute – is preserved to the parties inviolate. Secondary laws running rough-shot over the truth do not take priority of authority over those rights conferred under the Constitution of the United States of America.  This is eloquently expressed and ruled on, informing and laying a foundation for future case law in: Marbury v. Madison (1803).    

Screening for Merit is a designation and label that does not appear under Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  Screening for Merit does not appear in the index.  A litigant whose case is assigned to screening, not being an attorney, would have to dive into these rules assuming they would know where to find them. Even so they would still wonder what does and does not apply to screening.  This informs the institutional bias to preserve screening to the disadvantage of indigent persons.  Such tactics empower abuse safe in the knowledge that indigent means no money.  No access to an attorney. Deprived of any meaningful defense. Game on!  The screening fiat court has all the advantage.                                                    

Rule 72. Magistrate Judges: Pretrial Order (a) NONDISPOSITIVE MATTERS. Reads: When a pretrial matter not dispositive of a party’s claim or defense is referred to a magistrate judge to hear and decide, the magistrate judge must promptly conduct the required proceedings (which I have to guess is Screening for Merit) and, when appropriate, issue a written order stating the decision.  

Rule 72(a) then states: The district judge in the case must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.  Under Judge Lipman’s oversight, objective evidence of slander cited in multiple objection filings was not enough to require recusal.  Blatant misstatements of fact were not set aside. This informs that Judge Lipman was equally invested in seeing that this Civil RICO Case not put a dent in whatever statistical gains had been achieved over the previous year.

Claiming that one has done something without actually fulfilling the requirements of doing so does not measure up to: must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.  Every dismissal written by Judge Vescovo and adopted by Judge Lipman is premised upon changed dates, misstatements of fact, overt contradiction of claims, and fatal omissions. It appears that Judge Lipman merely rubber stamped the conclusions that saved her court the expense of allowing a Civil RICO Case to proceed.  This is informed by the record that the Circuit Executive has elected not to look at.   And that… however, the statutory obligation of the district court to arrive at its own, independent conclusion about those portions of the magistrate’s report to which objection is made is not satisfied by a mere review of the magistrates report itself.  Hernandez v. Estelle.   

Rule 72(3) Resolving Objections. Reads: The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. Judge Lipman exercised none of these requirements.  Writing to what functioned as a brick wall Clair petitioned over and over again to be heard (right to object) via: Objection to the Report and Recommendations 08/02/2016 [14].  Motion for Disqualification 10/25/2016 [21].  Motion for Recusal 05/02/2017 [36].  Amended Assignment of Errors 05/02/2017 [37].  Motion to Reverse Judgement 05/02/2017 [38]. 

The first Amended Complaint arose from Judge Vescovo’s assertion that Clair could not include defrauded federal agencies as co-plaintiffs in the Civil RICO Complaint. Message to Clair, she needed to amend the complaint dropping federal agencies as co-plaintiffs.  Disdain for pro se, indigent persons suggest that every barrier to being heard, came with the expectation that she would follow the pro se script and give up.  This trick, for trick it was, served the defense. Decision as to whether federal agencies could be enjoined to the Civil RICO Case was the domain of a trial judge.  Dropping them limited exposure of these crimes having a public record that could garner investigation by federal agencies. Such a decision was the right of a trial judge and had no place at what functioned as the Screening for Merit blockade. Rule 72 was trashed. The Rules of Civil Procedure were not followed.  Screening for Merit was used as a tool to deny Due Process.  Procedural Due Process did not exist and was not enforced by Judge Lipman.    

Role of the Magistrate Judge by consent of the parties.  Is this another rule that applies everywhere but at the screening juncture?  

FORGERY: There was an interim period that my appeal to the sixth circuit was sent back to the district court for ruling on an outstanding appealable order(s) and, or, issues ambiguously alluded to.  The Order issued from the sixth circuit states: This matter is before the court upon initial consideration…  “Initial consideration” communicates that the first panel of judges expected that, if issues were not resolved at the district court permission would be granted to file the Pro Se Appellant’s Brief to mean that they would likely revisit this appeal. As it turned out they were prevented from doing so. 

The Order of: 02/24/2017, [8], first sixth circuit case number: 16-6672, reads: This court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal.  No final or appealable order terminating all of the issues presented in the litigation has been entered by the district court

Clair naturally wanted to know what “appealable issues” had not been addressed by the district court?  To this day she does not have an answer.  She hoped beyond hope that the sixth circuit first panel of judges recognized that the objection filings had not been addressed, i.e., that slander of the claims and denial of the right to be heard were the stake-objections and the focus of every objection filing.  Clair prayed that here was a chance that her Civil RICO Case might actually move beyond the screening blockade.  She thus, filed three Motions for Clarity.  One directed to the first panel of judges at the sixth circuit.  And two directed to the district court. The one-page second request to the District Court reads: “The District Court recently mailed me a copy of Document #:27, ORDER Dismissing Case and Striking (25) Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. I am left to conclude that it is the First Amended Complaint and not the Second that the District Court has not ruled on.   I do not have an attorney.  I am therefore at a considerable disadvantage which is a source of anxiety to me; not schooled in procedure or law, being a senior citizen, having a minor learning disability and well aware that there is a considerable imbalance of power.  Therefore, would you, in an unambiguous, straightforward manner, communicate if I am right to conclude that it is the First Amended Complaint that remains pending?  And additionally, confirm that the District Court will rule on this decision (outstanding issues) at a point in time in keeping with the courts schedule.”

Following the practice of avoiding any reference to objections related to slander of the claims and material alteration of content, the district court then issued: Order Granting Motion/Request for Clarity. The Order opens in the first paragraph: Clair argues that she lacks an understanding… I was arguing nothing.  Arguing is not a luxury operating within the one-sided separate and inherently unequal Screening for Merit exercise-processes.  I was begging for clarity as to what the sixth circuit judges considered not to have been ruled on at the district court.

Between 02/24/2017 and 06/01/2017, Clair waited in vain for the district court to address whatever outstanding “issues” the sixth circuit first panel of judges referred to in their Order of 02/24/2017 [8]; No.: 16-6672.   Her hope was that finally the objection filings would address slander of the claims and thus, upon recognition of “mistakes and errors” allow her Civil RICO case to move forward.  Clair did not yet understand that the sixth circuit first case manager had contrived an exit strategy; contradicting the judges order to thus, deliver an excuse by which screening abuses, outstanding appealable orders, would never be addressed.   When it became clear that the district court had no intention of ruling on any outstanding appealable order or “issues” Clair filed the 06/01/2017 Notice that the appeal should resume. 

To elaborate… At this point Clair had no recognition that her request for clarity filed with the sixth circuit had been misrepresented as the Petition for Rehearing when in fact there was nothing to rehear since Clair had not yet been granted permission to file the Pro Se Appellant’s Brief. I believe that the sixth circuit first panel of judges never saw the request for clarity.  The first case manager, Karen Fultz, by this fatal and single “edit” of a filing provided the needed exit excuse whereby the district court need not supply sixth circuit Judges: NORRIS, BATCHELDER, AND GIBBONS with an answer.  Not supply Clair with an answer.  The relabel-heading of this filing, morphed the sixth circuit request for clarity into: The petition for rehearing is denied” MANDATE ISSUED 04/17/2017 [13]. “Denied.”  Thus, no obligation of Judge Lipman to respond and, or, require Magistrate Judge Vescovo to respond in keeping with Rule 72(a): The district judge in the case must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.  And 72(b)(3) Resolve objections.  Objections were never “resolved” because they were never answered proven in that slander is allowed to stand. At every step were the imbalance of power, disparity of knowledge, and bias against indigent persons could be leveraged, it was leveraged by this district court.    

Clair submitted the 06/01/2017 Notice that her appeal should resume through the clerk’s office at the district court.  Clair placed the only sixth circuit case number she was aware of on the facing page of this 06/01/2017 Notice; Case No.: 16-6672.  This notice was not filed under the first Case Number upon arrival at the sixth circuit.  It was not filed at all. Fourteen summary appeal questions, later fleshed out in the Pro Se Appellant’s Brief (never read) appear in this three-page 06/01/2017 Notice. 

With trust breached Clair had adopted the habit of bringing a copy along to be stamped for her records.  In blue ink Clair’s copy is stamped as received to the district court: “RECEIVED Jun – 1 AM: 9:28 Thomas M. Gould Clerk, U.S. District W/D of Memphis.”  This 06/01/2017 Notice, listed fourteen summary and succinctly phrased appeal questions.  They could not be allowed to filter forward to the first sixth circuit panel of judges to whom they were directed.  To whom the earlier request for clarity had been directed and gone unanswered; morphed into the phony and fraud producing Petition for Rehearing.  Objective evidence proves that this filing was replaced with a forgery. Was this filing forged and replaced at the district court?  Or, upon being received at the sixth circuit?  What substitutes for the first two pages is a copy of the letter assigning the decoy second case number and second case manager.  What substitutes for page-three is the list of defendants.

In the United States every person, by law, is entitled to the opportunity to be heard in a court of law upon every question involving his rights or interests, before he is affected by any judicial decision on the question.”   (Earle v. Mc Veigh, 91 US 503, 23 L Ed 398).  Or is this yet, another axiom that does not apply to screening.  This act of forgery quashed the fourteen appeal questions.  Forgery is not addressed by any Memorandum and Order.  The subject of those complaints for judicial misconduct are linked by forgery (Complaint Numbers 06-18-901 05/06/07/08).  The circuit executive has these two filings in their possession as Attachment No.: 25 and Attachment No.: 38; 38 reads: Document Fraud.  Pacer Copy of what substitutes and conceals the Appeal from list.  Proof of forgery has been quashed from recognition.  This informs cover-up extending to the Circuit Executive failure to refer the entire record for investigation to the Judicial Counsel; special committee. 

ELECTRONIC NOTIFCATIONS:  I had signed up for electronic notifications.  At the exact precise juncture where I could have been notified that upon screening the Civil RICO Case it had been dismissed:  Case No.: 16-2263, Order Adopting 7 8 Report and Recommendations 07/14/2016; (Lipman, Sheryl) (entered 04/14/2016) electronic notification failed. Four notices were not received.  Responsibility for this was assigned to me.  Blaming the victim, I was told that I had missed and, or, mistakenly deleted them.    

RICO criteria requires proof that there is an ongoing pattern of criminal behavior by the same perpetrator nexus.  Among the three cases I cited was one that, if I had been allowed due process was tied by substantial objective evidence to my, RICO case. This case centered on corporate espionage and internet hacking, sophisticated enough that it went on undetected over a three-year period. I wrote a letter to the district court; 7/18/2016 [11].  It read: It is my belief that the criminal elements named in my Civil RICO Private Right of Action, have co-opted my email account.  This fits the past pattern of behavior in another case in which the same defendants hacked into the computer system of a rival company for an extended period of time with the IP Address traced back to Keller Williams – MEM 2, LLC.  Prudential Collins-Maury, Inc., Realtors v. MEM 2, d.b.a., Keller Williams Realty, aka, Keller Williams Realty East.  Docket # CH 11 – 1860 Part 3 / Chancery Court in Shelby County, TN.

Persons from this case would have been on my witness list. Upon belief that this case was not settled until it was perceived the fix was in at the district court regarding my case.

It was apparently beyond reason that Judge Lipman would consider the possibility that any criminal element could hack the computer systems of the federal government. Or that her IT department had simply made four mistakes in not sending four communications. I then submitted evidence that the four emails in question had not been received to my computer.  This audit concluded that the hacking and, or, interference with notice began at the district court. In this instance and at this juncture the failure of notice did not originate on my end. 

The report in part stated: The only proof that the mail; was ever sent to Ms. Clair comes from whomever she spoke with.  If the Court wanted to prove the mail was sent to Clair’s email, they could have simply sent it with a read receipt, which in this case was not done.

The circuit executive has this report in their possession as Attachment No.: 17: Letter confirming emails from the district court not received. Unless of course the attachments to the complaints of judicial misconduct are lost or have been misplaced.  Or considered not worth looking at.  One must ask, was the possibility of interference with email notifications from the district court written up in whatever would function as an error report.  Or reported as a potential crime; suspicion and not proof being the threshold.  Call coincidence what you will.  Opposition to this Civil RICO Case ever seeing the light of a courtroom began here.      

The solution in dealing with the rise of indigent complaints was not to adapt performance, offering help to pro se litigants as other federal courts have done (Federal District Court in Brooklyn, NY) The appearance exists that this particular Magistrate Judge was appointed by Judge Lipman knowing that she would be predisposed to a quick turn over of this case because in fact, this was her assignment.  Have there been other similar complaints filed against Judge Vescovo involving obstruction of the right to be heard, failure to address objections, and abuse of screening procedures as a pattern, enabled by this district court?  Was Judge Vescovo appointed by Judge Lipman? 

Fraud, even mistakes and errors achieving fraud, invalidates every decision. A void judgment is a nullity, and no rights can be based thereon; it can be set aside on motion or can be collaterally attacked at any time.  Garren v. Rollis 375 P.2d 994 (Idaho 1962).   Courts lose jurisdiction if they do not follow Due Process Law. Title 5, US Cod Sec. 556(d), Sec. 557, Sec. 706.  These same machinations, employing Orwellian logic, have produced the fraud concealing outcome that I still have an outstanding Motion for a Void Judgement at the District Court.  Achieved per another separate and unequal practice of delegating “less than” indigent complaints to the sole discretion of those that are not judges. 

I DECLARE UNDER PANALTY OF PERJURY THAT ALL STATEMENTS ARE TRUE.

Signed: ______________________________  Date:  _______

Alexandra Clair; PO Box 334, Spring Hill, KS 66083 / (901) 504-9704


[1] Windsor v. The Tennessean, 719 F.2d 155, 158 (6th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 826, 105 S.CT. 105, 83 L.ED.2d 50 (1984); Chartrand v. Chrysler Corp., 785 F. Supp. 666, 669 (E.D. Mich. 1992).